Ranjeet Keer @ Raj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2956 MP

                                 1
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                         CRA No. 10405 of 2022
              (RANJEET KEER @ RAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 17-02-2023
      Shri Narendra Nikhare - Advocate for the appellant.

      Ms. Seema Sahu - Panel Lawyer for the State.
      Shri Dinesh Tiwari - Advocate for the prosecutrix.

      Heard on admission.
      Admit.

      At the outset, learned counsel for the objector prays for withdrawal
of I.A. No. 2776/2023, which is an application filed on behalf of the
prosecutrix to release the appellant on bail.
      Prayer is allowed.
      I.A. No. 2776/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.
      Heard on I.A.No.21427/2022, which is an application filed on
behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
      The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections
363, 366, 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine

of Rs.1000/-, R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for 10 years
with fine of Rs. 3000/- respectively with default stipulation.
      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix
has solemnized marriage with the appellant and she is residing with the
family of the appellant for last about 4 years as wife of the appellant. The
appellant has remained in custody from 22.11.2018 to 12.4.2019 and
thereafter from the date of judgment i.e. 28.10.2022 till date. The
                                  2
prosecutrix has no objection if the jail sentence of the appellant is
suspended and he is released on bail. There is a bleak possibility of
disposal of this appeal in near future, therefore, the custodial sentence of
the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.
      Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application.
      The prosecutrix is present in person in the Court along with her
counsel. She has stated that she has no objection if the appellant is
released on bail.
      I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The prosecutrix in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and statement recorded
before the Court during trial, has stated that she is residing with the family

of the appellant for last about 4 years as wife of the appellant. The trial
Court in Para 31 of its judgment has observed that the parents of the
prosecutrix in their written arguments have mentioned that the appellant
and prosecutrix have performed marriage on 28.8.2020 and prosecutrix is
pregnant.
      Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find
it to be a fit case to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant and to
release him on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merit of the
case, the application is allowed.
      I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not
already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial
                                                         3
                      sentence of appellant Ranjeet Keer @ Raj shall remain suspended and
                      he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the trial Court
                      o n 18.7.2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard
                      during pendency of this appeal.
                            The appellant shall regularly appear before the trial Court, on each
                      and every date, without fail.
                            List for final hearing in due course.


                                                                         (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
                                                                               JUDGE

                      PB




PRADYUMNA BARVE
2023.02.20

14:37:08 +05'30'